February 18, 2020

A Conference for You!

By Chaplain Mike

We don’t normally advertise conferences around here, but I came across one recently that made me think, “Now there’s a conference I’d like to sit in on.”

It’s called: “Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right—The First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism.” It will be held right here in the great state of Indiana (what made ya think we’re conservative around here?) in South Bend, near Notre Dame University. It’s a bargain at $50, seeing that lunch is included and you get great presentations like these:

  • Geocentrism: They Know It but They’re Hiding It
  • Scientific Experiments Showing Earth Motionless in Space
  • Scientific Evidence: Earth in the Center of the Universe
  • The Biblical Firmament: Outer Space Is Not Empty
  • Carbon 14 and Radiometric Dating Show Young Earth

The conference will be held next Saturday, November 6, and you can get further information at their website. Here is a summary of the main idea they are advocating:

Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.

Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo’s confrontation shows that the Church’s position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.

You can download samples from their books at the website to learn more. They also have a great store, where you can get lots of “Galileo Was Wrong” promotional stuff, including t-shirts, coffee mugs, and even bibs and onesies for the little geocentrists in your family. Advertise your scientific savvy! Don’t be shy! Be a Geocentric Guy!

If I didn’t have other commitments, I’d go just so I could report on it to you, my IM friends. I’m sure it will be positively medieval.


  1. Hmmmm…how long do you think it will be before we have a “Geocentric Museum,” run by an Australian Catholic? 😉


    • Keith Todd says

      This really frightened me Denise. I thought for a moment that the site had gone rogue.
      Your heliocentric professing, old earth believing, science teacher neighbor.

  2. The man behind this event is a Catholic apologist who has kind of gone to some odd extremes about how Catholics should view Jews, geo-centrism, and so on. Unfortunately it has cast a dark shadow over his earlier apologetics work, which was solid. Most Catholics now look at his ideas about geo-centrism as “completely loony.”

    • Christiane says

      I thought the post was a JOKE.

      Do you mean this conference is FOR REAL?

      no way . . .

    • So did I, Christiane. This is more horrifying than anything else one could come up with for Halloween!

    • Is Sungenis’ belief in geocentrism any more eccentric than believing this:

      347. What happened when Our Lord said: “This is My body . . . this is My blood”?
      When Our Lord said, “This is My body,” the entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said, “This is My blood,” the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood.

      The Holy Eucharist
      Lesson 26 from the Baltimore Cathechism

      • Or this:

        Then YHWH Elohim formed the man out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. – Genesis 2:7

        • Hey now, EricW, be nice. 🙂

          I’ll admit that some beliefs are strange indeed. But to compare transubstantiation and creationism to geocentrism is a bit of a stretch, me thinks.

          Of course I could be completely wrong, but then again I’m a strange person myself, so…. 😉

          • The first example points out something that many Protestants consider to be just as bizarre and wrongheaded as Sungenis’ geocentrism. And it’s not simply transubstantiation; it’s the assertion that the change occurred during the Last Supper with Jesus still reclining and talking to His disciples. That’s an even bigger “What the hey????” for many Protestants. Catholics who roll their eyes at Sungenis hold just as irrational beliefs as far as many Protestants are concerned.

            The second example is for Christians, Catholic or Protestant, who roll their eyes at Sungenis’ “science,” yet hold to a belief about man’s creation that may have even less scientific credibility or provability than geocentrism.

          • I admit, EricW, I don’t always know what you’re arguing with, or about, or what you are seeking to prove. Perhaps it’s just the fun of the arena? Just a Monty Python professional contradiction? Or do you have a belief system you have found to be true and want to uphold?

  3. So this is actually SERIOUS? The website and all make it look so real, but I was holding out that it is all a joke. But now Devin tells us this is for real. Oh dear.

  4. You have the Creation Museum, we have these guys.

    Except that it’s a purely (as far as I can see) American thing. I really don’t know any European geocentrists. I’m not denying the possibility, just that I’ve never heard of any.

    Ah, well: every family has a few black sheep, yes?

    The only thing is that some of this group does have dodgy attitudes towards the Jews, so… not recommended.

    A good laugh, but not Catholic thinking. This is the kind of thing that exemplifies the saying “More Catholic than the Pope.”

  5. Don’t bash Medieval, Chaplain Mike! In many ways the Middle Ages were a far more enlightened time than our own — certainly not less so. And their central metaphor, that the universe is held together by attractions and longings for perfection, is a lot more congenial than the mechanistic or chaotic metaphors of our own time.

    Sorry, just have to stick up for a much maligned period!

    • Very true, Damaris. Put up St. Thomas Aquinas versus Robert Sungenis, put the evidence before them and let them decide on the facts, and I’m betting on Mr. Thirteenth Century to be more fair, rational, and guided by logic every time.


    • Didn’t mean to diss your era, Damaris! Just referring to the Galileo thing.

      • Galileo was Renaissance, Chaplain Mike 🙂

        Don’t worry, it’s a less egregious error than those who routinely confound the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.

        • Galileo was renaissance, but the Catholic church was still positively medieval! : ))

          • Actually, we were in the middle of the Counter-Reformation at the time, and in response to the Protestant Reformers’ accusations of being insufficiently Biblical, certain preachers were very down on Galileo for his seeming denial of Scripture.

            I would argue that the post-Reformation church (at least until it settled down a bit) was actually less tolerant than the Mediaeval, because it was constantly looking over its shoulder at the Protestants. Now, there were a lot of very needed and very necessary reforms because of this, no doubt about it, but on the other hand, something was lost; something like Aquinas’ synthesis of Catholic theology with the great Classical predecessors such as Aristotle (although yes, Artistotle’s science was outmoded and flawed). This kind of accommodation with ‘paganism’ became unthinkable, and I think you can see the influence on such things as church art, e.g. the tendency towards a spun-sugar plaster-saint piety that really took off in the 18th century and reached its zenith – or nadir – in the 19th and which we’re still struggling with today.

            I’m not a big fan of the Renaissance as such – yes, I’m happily stuck in the 8th to 12th centuries – so I’d be quite happy with a return to the Mediaeval!

            Gothic chasubles in preference to the fiddleback!


          • I agree with Martha. The insult you want here is that the church was positively counter-reformation!

          • I love debates between historians!

            Appreciate you folks keeping me on the straight and narrow.

          • I’m with Damaris – if you want to get stuck into the Rococo era, go right ahead! Some of the Bavarian churches are positively frightening – they look like confections (and I use the word advisedly) if the architect of the Witch’s Gingerbread Cottage in “Hansel and Gretel” had a side-line in church architecture:


            There were some frankly scary examples of German Rococo church interiors – all pink and green and pastels, looking like icing on a cake – on the Shrine of the Holy Whapping blog, but I can’t locate them (probably for the best).


    • No kidding. Today, we understand gothic architecture no better than the construction of the pyramids.

  6. Robert Sungenis isn’t worth my two cents. Seriously, the guy is a loony toon.

  7. Are you going to lean on the Word of God or trust in your own sinful reasoning? That’s the only question.

    Are you going to trust God, who set the universe up, or Science, an invention of man that continually finds that it was wrong about past theories?

    Believing that the earth revolves around the sun is a slippery slope that can only lead to completely renouncing Scripture as anything more than a free self-help book.

    The next thing we know, pointy-headed secular scientists will be telling us that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is not exactly 3, as written in scripture. Remember that academics are mainly liberals, meaning they are mainly evil, and you do not get good water from a poisoned spring.

    • This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me this is sarcasm.

      • Don’t ask heretical questions!!!

      • Oh I certainly hope this is sarcastic. The circle thing makes no sense but the rest of it unfortunately sounds rather serious. I hope Hoodoo comes back to clarify.

        • Probably busy rewriting War of the Worlds….

        • 2 Chronicles 4:2: “Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

          Pi = 30/10 = 3. God said it, I believe it, and that settle’s it.

          /s 🙂

          • Wow! You’re like Stephen Colbert. You never break character. Bravo.

          • I know what a smily face is, but what does /s mean? Thanks.

            And Grant, I hope (and think) that you are correct that he is staying “in character.” I haven’t heard how the Colbert and Stewart happening in Washington DC went yesterday. Hopefully something in the paper today.

          • Joanie,
            The /s is ‘end sarcasm’. It’s kinda like the old fashioned way of writing html tags where you’d have to write tags for ending italics and stuff like that. In this case, it was a shorthand way to let us all know he’s not really on the other end of the crazy spectrum throwing rocks at us 🙂

          • Hoodoo,
            here is a tshirt you might like then.

          • Ok, so I always read this, not as a diameter, but as a cord through the circle, which could easily be only one third of the circumference. Or y’know, the ancient Hebrews, unlike the Egyptians and Babylonians didn’t deal in fractions, only in wholes and 3.14 rounds down to 3.

            Ok, yeah, thin straws, grasping, I know.

  8. Does this have anything to do with Stewart”s and Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity???

  9. Heard about this a while back. AWE-SOME.

  10. Right! And nobody heard from Columbus after he sailed off the edge of the flat earth.

  11. I remember in college writing a paper on Thomas Aquinas. I was so impressed by his intelligence! I don’t remember, though…did he think the earth rotated and that it went around the sun?

    It’s amazing to me that scientists are able to figure out the things they figure out. Just getting music and people talking from my radio is like a miracle to me!

    • I can’t find the references, but I believe he accepted the Ptolemaic (geocentric) system and the Aristotleian cosmology (the concentric spheres of the heavens), because that was the science of the time and fit with Scripture.

      But he was open to other explanations, as these quotes on the occasion of his feastday by Michael Flynn on his excellent blog shows:

      6. Since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
      (Summa theologica, Part I, Q. 68, art. 1)

      9. The suppositions that these astronomers have invented need not necessarily be true; for perhaps the phenomena of the stars are explicable on some other plan not yet discovered by men
      llorum tamen suppositiones quas adinvenerunt, non est necessarium esse veras: licet enim, talibus suppositionibus factis, apparentia salvarentur, non tamen oportet dicere has suppositiones esse veras; quia forte secundum aliquem alium modum, nondum ab hominibus comprehensum, apparentia circa stellas salvantur.
      (De coelo [On the heavens], II, lect. 17)

      10. The theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.
      Sicut in astrologia ponitur ratio excentricorum et epicyclorum ex hoc quod, hac positione facta, possunt salvari apparentia sensibilia circa motus caelestes, non tamen ratio haec est sufficienter probans, quia etiam forte alia positione facta salvari possent.
      (Summa theologica, I, Q.32, art.1)

      So Tommy A. would be quite willing to accept heliocentrism if the proofs were logically sound and scientifically accurate,and would not get knotted up over this being a contradiction of Scripture.

      Which puts him ahead of this conference despite being one of Those Awful Mediaevals.

      This does make me wonder if there will be an ecumenical rapprochement between the ultra-ultra Catholic Geocentrists and the ultra-literalist Young Earth Creationists?


      • I love this, Martha, “Since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

        Thomas Aquinas is my kind of guy! 🙂

      • There was a Greek from 2000 years or more ago who figured out the earth was round based on the angles of the sun in the sky and how it was different in Greece and Egypt at the same time of the year. He was off in his calculations of the diameter by 1/2 or double or similar. I suspect that was due to the inability to measure very accurately the distance between the two points in Greece and Egypt. No GPS and all that.

      • Wonderful – another Flynn fan. I knew there was a reason I liked you, Martha…

  12. Dang, and I thought all this time that the earth revolved around me. D’oh!

  13. Christiane says

    If this is true, I sure give Notre Dame credit for celebrating diversity. 🙂

    They don’t shrink from controversy either.

    • I have the suspicion that the organisers of this conference chose to locate it near Notre Dame as a reproach to the Horrible Liberal Jesuits there (for whatever value of “Horrible Liberal Jesuitism” you care to attribute; things seem to be slowly improving in that it’s reputedly coming back to its roots as a Catholic university and not just a college with a great football team attached).

      No, I think this is their version of throwing down the gauntlet for Really Real Roman Catholicism and True Biblical Teaching as against the wishy-washy teaching of a Catholic university that probably accepts heliocentrism without a qualm.


      • I am sure they are locating it in South Bend just because people associate South Bend with the University of Notre Dame. I can guarantee that they have no official relationship to the University.

      • “No, I think this is their version of throwing down the gauntlet for Really Real Roman Catholicism and True Biblical Teaching as against the wishy-washy teaching of a Catholic university that probably accepts heliocentrism without a qualm.”

        I’m totally buying front-row seats to the show 🙂

      • Those are Jebbies running Notre Dame!

  14. Allan Schwarb says

    If NASA has a video of the Earth orbiting the Sun, isn’t this discussion over?

    • Buford Hollis says

      Why no. To begin with, you don’t need to go into space–all the relevant data are visible from right here on earth. Anyway, there is no “absolute” frame of reference from which to observe the solar system. Maybe the sun really IS orbiting the earth, while the other stars and planets are doing epicycles or something. The only reason for preferring the heliocentric system is that it’s simpler

    • Besides,that stuff was faked using special effects.

    • In case this is a serious question, the distances involved and the time frames mean you can’t see the earth spinning around the sun. Over any time of less than a few months they are just sitting in space moving slowly relative to each other. And any view that includes both is so far back that both are just bright dots against a sea of dots.

      To “see” the orbits you have to take some very careful measurements over time and then do the trig. And “back in the day” this was NOT easy. Log tables, I think, came after Galileo so there was a lot of interpretation and drawing of lines. And even with log tables and such the math was just a bit tedious relative to using computers as we do today.

      Any one else here still have their book of SIN, COSIN, log tables and such?

  15. Buford Hollis says

    It’s too late for this year, but maybe next year. When is their call for papers? (Gee, I wonder if they need any referrees to help them evaluate submitted abstracts?)

    So–we know the earth is the center of the universe, but are we sure that it’s ROUND? Could it be hollow, with us living on the inside?

    • Buford, I thought Hell was located in the interior of the Earth.

      Gasp! Can I not trust Dante’s poem, then? When he and Virgil climb out into the Southern Hemisphere to Mount Purgatory, having passed the centre of the earth where Satan is located?


      • “Can I not trust Dante’s poem, then? When he and Virgil climb out into the Southern Hemisphere to Mount Purgatory, having passed the centre of the earth where Satan is located?”

        Because Dante is TOTALLY a Doctor of Church 😉

        And if Hell is really located in the center of the Earth, the things I learned in physics class about the gravity of Earth’s center just became that much more disturbing.

        • But Tim! This would mean treating a poem as a – work of fiction!

          And that means that we would have to take certain elements of the Bible as literary compositions, which means treating them – like poems!

          Can’t you see the diabolic trap we are falling into? This is obviously the work of Satan!

          No, if Dante says he visited Hell located in the bowels of the Earth, and he was working from a geocentric Universe, who are we to deny the inerrancy of Scripture?

          Think you know better than the Holy Spirit, huh?

          • Until an Ecumenical Council- with the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Lake Wobegon in attendance- declares Dante to be in the Canon, I refuse to give in.

            I know better than the Holy Spirit? No- on the contrary, I am convicted by Him on this issue.

            Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me.

            …I really want to eat some coddle.

        • Well if the center of the earth is mostly molten iron then that would match many descriptions of hell.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      So–we know the earth is the center of the universe, but are we sure that it’s ROUND? Could it be hollow, with us living on the inside?


      (You think flake cults started in the 1960s?)

  16. Paul Davis says


    I’m sad to say this doesn’t surprise me, my wife and I both have started to believe that Catholic Apologists attend a different Catholic Church in another universe somewhere than we do. There are exceptions but for a protestant researching conversion, the reasonable ones seem few and far between!!

    Truth is stranger than fiction 🙂


    • Oh Paul, don’t lump us all in with this geo-whackjob! We “reasonable ones” are out there, working behind the scenes in the parishes.

      All I can do is shake my head at Sungenis and pray for him (as I watch the sun rise around the earth, that quite obviously I’m the center of.)

  17. Well….Technically speaking, there is no absolute frame of reference for position and motion in physics. It’s all about where you put your reference point. So in a way, the earth is motionless, and the universe revolves around it. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what these guys are talking about…

  18. Attending an LDS conference focusing on the Mormon belief that the planet Kolob is the center of the universe would be the perfect follow-on.

  19. More about Sungenis “credentials” here http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2010/09/summary-of-robert-sungenis-and-jews.html#Doctorate

    Sungenis has no official capacity in the Catholic Church and was forced by his bishop to take the name “Catholic” off of his organization. Thank you.

  20. Hate to burst anyone’s bubble. But Galileo thought the sun was the center of the universe. I don’t think that view is widely held today. So he and his Ptolemaic-leaning opponents were both wrong.

    • Well, of course he was wrong about some of it. Who is claiming that Galileo figured out everything???

    • And we are “wrong” today about any number of our scientific findings. That’s the nature of science, Marv. Scientists construct models that best explain the data we uncover through ever-better means of observation and calculation. As we develop better methods, we come up with more accurate models. Galileo had a telescope. We have so much more. 500 years from now, if Christ hasn’t returned, people will look back and comment on the relatively primitive state of our scientific understanding.

    • Ah, the poisoning-the-wells fallacy. It works in theological wars as well as in campaign commercials.

    • There’s always the little-known compromise Tychoist view (named after the astronomer, Tycho Brahe), in which the Sun revolves around the Earth but the other planets revolve around the Sun-Earth pairing. I think this should be common ground between the Ptolemaists and the Copernicists.

      Can’t we all just get along?

  21. Wow. I thought this was a joke when I first read it. The only positive I can get out of this is the fact that it’s a little reassuring to know that the craziness isn’t confined to evangelicalism and protestantism.

  22. When I read the title of the conference the only thing I could think of was the Rudyard Kipling tale, “The Village that Voted the Earth Was Flat,” which is a wonderful story about perception and reality…..

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      “The Village that voted The Earth Was Flat,
      Flat as your hat!
      Flatter than that!

  23. A little off topic, but the discussion of Galileo reminds me of the 19th Century discussions by people who wanted to create the “war between religion and science” and created the urban myth that Galileo was persecuted for his “heretical” views that the sun, not the earth, was the center.

    Actually, Galileo’s trial turned out when one ferrets out the facts, to be more political than theological. It was the reason his predecessor Copernicus wasn’t brought before the Inquisition. The Catholic Church was smarting at the time by the events following the Reformation, and was quite sensitive to anybody who bucked tradition.

    The problem with Galileo was not his cosmology, but the fact he was somewhat of a jerk. In one of his treatises, he alienated his former friend who was now the Pope, casting him as a clown and ignoramus. It was more of a complicated affair than modern myth allows.

    • Marc, I would say it is not either/or, but both/and.

    • I’d like to nitpick one point here. You’re absolutely right about Galileo (notice how Kepler managed to avoid getting in any trouble), but Copernicus had his On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres published right before his death, so that by the time its impact was felt, he had gone to meet his maker and have a lovely discussion about how astronomy actually worked.

      • Jason,

        Kepler may have avoided problems, but his mother was tried as a witch. The book, “Kepler’s Witch” by James A. Connor is a good read about his troubles.

    • Galileo certainly had an ego, but what strikes one in reading about his years of persecution and trial is how many friends and even strangers remained faithful and sacrificed a great deal to take care of Galileo. He can’t have been that bad.

  24. Uhm, excuse me, but I thought New York City was the center of the universe. 🙂

  25. Well, we still say that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It should be easy to prove. The sun floats up into the sky because it is made of wood. So if the sun weighs the same as a duck…

    • Why a duck? (Sorry, couldn’t resist the Groucho Marx reference. )

      • Monty Python Holy Grail witch scene logic applied to astronomy.

        • “Monty Python Holy Grail witch scene logic applied to astronomy.”

          If we followed that reasoning to it climax, we would end up burning the Sun for being a witch. However, if it is wood, but provides light, it is already on fire. Thus, we are lighting a fire on fire. However, this matters not. Because the Sun weighs the same as a duck. Therefore, it must be a witch 🙂

    • Then again, the sun is made of hydrogen and helium, which both float. That could explain why the sun rises every morning. It sets at night, like a party balloon as the helium leaks out.

      I still like Tim’s explanation; the sun must be a witch. It turned me into a newt once, but I got better.

  26. Criticism of Ptolemy’s planetary motion actually began with Muslim astronomers – long before Galileo. So, there you go! First, Muslims want to build a mosque at “ground zero”, then the want to institute sharia law, now they want to tell us that the planets don’t revolve around the earth. Next, they’ll tell us that the world is not flat. Quick! somebody call Glen Beck! Get Bill O’Reilly on the phone! Somebody needs to put a stop to this! Just don’t Juan Williams; he’s already a nervous wreck. This would push him over the edge.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      Years ago, there was a News of the Weird article about some Ulema in Saudi who actually issued a binding Fatwa that The Earth is Flat, “As It Is Written in the Koran.”

      • That’s because a few 100 years after Mohamed there was a rebellion in the Muslim world against science and they’ve mostly been in that hole ever since.

        Algebra is named after the Arabians who invented it for the most part. Today MOST Muslim clerics would reject it. Not all but most.

  27. David Morris says

    James Hannam wrote a great book about Medieval Science and the Church called “God’s Philosophers”. He also has a blog called bede journal and a fun website. He also thinks that the Galileo thing was more political than scientific. Even Galileo’s opponents said they would believe him if he could prove it (e.g. Cardinal Bellarmino). Of course, it didn’t help that Galileo put the Pope’s thoughts into the mouth of “Simplicio”. Oh dear….

    • Headless Unicorn Guy says

      Yeah, calling the Pope (your patron and protector) an idiot in print will do that.

      Don’t forget that this was also during the hottest part of the Thirty Years’ War, which completely devastated Central Europe. The Church, like everybody in Europe, was on a war footing and in wartime the last thing you want is anything that could cause division and weaken the home front.

  28. The truth is, though, if you asked me to give a mathematical explanation for why I believe the planets revolve around the Sun I could not give you one. Physics is tricky stuff! It does make me curious, though. I wonder if I’ll have the time (and capacity) to understand the math and physics behind that? And to find out if there is any room for alternate interpretations?

    So without reading their tome and becoming a student of the math and physics of astronomy, the only contention I could have with this group is that they disagree with centuries of commonly accepted astronomy, especially as taught by Mrs. Weurtle in my third grade class! (I made up the part about my third grade class.)

    • And they don’t just disagree with astronomy. They say that the Church was right in condemning heliocentrism; but the Church no longer condemns heliocentrism, so they are now in rebellion to the Church that they’re claiming is right. Hmm.

    • Eaton, I can assure you that even though you may not be able to formulate the explanations from scratch, you can almost certainly understand them when you see them written out or when you hear them described to you. The math part is really stinking simple.

      But, perhaps more convincing would be the observations which prove the planets are not orbiting the Earth. (technically you can’t prove a negative, but you can show that the only way for the sun/planets to be orbiting the Earth is for there to be MAJOR violations of just about every area of known physics – ie, the only way it could happen is for continuous miraculous intervention by God to completely fool every measurement we can make)

      For example, we don’t see planets just moving around the sky like they would if they were orbiting us, but sometimes we see them change directions and go back the other way. This makes perfect sense if we are orbiting the Sun inside their Sun-orbiting paths, however, if they are orbiting the Earth, something must be stopping them, moving them backwards for a while, and then reversing their course again. Something is also speeding them up and slowing them down, and they must also be following some really nutty sorts of zig-zagging orbit for some reason, constantly getting closer and then further away for no apparent reason.

      • Headless Unicorn Guy says

        Easily explainable by “God Wills It (TM)”.

        (“And then a miracle happens… And then a miracle happens… And then a miracle happens…”)

  29. Nate Williams says

    When I was a minister in east Tennessee that guy would always mail me his books even though I didn’t know him. I used to keep a couple around to look at when I needed a laugh on a bad day. The best part were some of the diagrams.